missexplanation not corrected before the lead

[Trinidad]

In one of my partnerships, which is six year long, and regular (once a week), it happens regularly that we have no agreement about bids. It also happens that we have two (or more) agreements about a bid.

 

We aren't really palookas, but we do have different opinions about the strategic principles underlying bidding. As a result, he regularly surprises me with bids that -in my view- are impossible. When the opponents ask what partner showed (and at such a point they always ask) I don't have a clue what it might be. I can only tell them that we do not have an agreement, that partner has a history of making incomprehensible bids and that they usually indicate that he did something wrong earlier in the auction.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

I can only tell them that we do not have an agreement, that partner has a history of making incomprehensible bids and that they usually indicate that he did something wrong earlier in the auction.

 

Rik

And I am sure your partner takes that in the nicest way :rolleyes:

 

"Bluhmers" come to mind in this thread..for the situation of an experienced competent partnership. Specifically, Bluhmers which are recognized by the other half of the partnership due entirely to a combination of the previous bids and of his/her own holding in the suit, not agreement.

[blackshoe]

I know what bloomers are, but what's a Bluhmer?

[mjj29]

Pran asks how we can deal with the people who are failing to disclose. Firstly - I don't believe the majority (or even a significant minority) of players are dishonest - and most of the time we should assume they are not. If we think someone may be lying with 'no agreement', as has been said, we gather what evidence we can to see if we can find any evidence they may have an agreement. As with other things in bridge - particularly psyches, there's always the option of recording hands and seeing if there's a trend of them having the same 'no agreement' auction multiple times.

 

Mostly if you ask the right questions, bridge players will answer them honestly and we rely on that quite a lot in the laws. Where people lie, that's a separate matter and the same principles apply here as elsewhere for dealing with that.

[aguahombre]

I know what bloomers are, but what's a Bluhmer?

You don't wear a Bluhmer, but it could get wrapped around your neck.

 

Its a thing attributed to Lou Bluhm..a bid signifying nothing (except interest in going high) in a convoluted auction; a cousin to Last Train, but "LT" is a real convention which is discussed and disclosable.

 

I.E., if you have talked about it, its Last Train. If not, its a Bluhmer.

[blackshoe]

Ah. Okay, got it. Thanks, Agua.

[pran]

The same way you make any determination of the facts - by gathering evidence, then using your experience and judgement to determine the truth. You listen to what the players say, and how they say it. You ask the players what they did discuss about the auction and when they discussed it. You ask them about other related auctions. You consider how likely it is that a pair would not have an agreement about it. You take into account what you and your colleagues know about the players. If in doubt, you believe what the players tell you, because most people are honest.

 

If I may say so, you seem to have a rather negative view of the players under your control. On my only visit to Norway I was impressed by how honest the players were, but perhaps I was lucky.

If I were only concerned with my own little world I wouldn't bother at all because I have yet to meet a player who hides behind "no agreement" or similar expressions when asked about an auction. In my world players keep in mind the main principle that opponents shall know all there is to know about auctions, nothing shall be kept secret under some technicality.

 

My worries are that players will "discover" the possibility with "no agreement" to "cleverly" use CPU. And arguments like "I do not have to tell opponents this" just tend to strengthen these worries.

[blackshoe]

I've heard "I don't have to explain that" exactly once. The auction went 1m-1♥-3♥-4NT-5♦-6♥. A bog standard auction, if you know what system they're playing. I wasn't sure, so I asked for an explanation of the auction. First response: "Huh?" Second response: a review of the bidding. Third response: Director! The putative declarer is the one who said, of the 3♥ bid, "I don't have to explain that". To my surprise, the TD explained to her that yes, she did have to explain any partnership agreement regarding that bid. Why surprise? The first thing the director asked me when she arrived at the table was "which call were you interested in?" I replied "all of them". B-)

 

The pair in question are a regular partnership, are decent but not as good as they think they are, and can be argumentative - they came back from a sectional a few years ago having received a score adjustment after a BIT by one of them, and for six months thereafter they called the director every time they thought there might have been a BIT by opps — so I wasn't picking on bunnies or anything like that.

 

When I've heard "no agreement" it's been from players who understand the rules, and who I know to be ethical players.

 

Anyway, the point is I don't hear things like that very often. Most of the disclosure problems around here arise because people don't understand the rules, not because they're trying to circumvent them.

[pran]

What remains as a possibility is then consistently taking a player stating "no agreement" (or words to that effect) away from the table while his partner explains his own call to the opponents.

That is also illegal. You can tell the partner to explain their agreements, but you can't tell him to explain what he intended by an undiscussed call. The opponents are entitled to know the partnership's agreements, but nothing else.

And what law (if any) makes it illegal for the Director to temporarily send a player away from the table while his partner discloses to opponents his own understanding of the partnership agreement (whether explicit or implicit) relevant to the call(s) in question? (Everything of course under supervision by the Director.)

[gnasher]

And what law (if any) makes it illegal for the Director to temporarily send a player away from the table while his partner discloses to opponents his own understanding of the partnership agreement (whether explicit or implicit) relevant to the call(s) in question? (Everything of course under supervision by the Director.)

That's perfectly legal, but it's not what you said before. What you said before was "his partner explains his own call to the opponents". Explaining the partnership agreement about a call is different from explaining the intended meaning of a call about which there is no agreement.

[barmar]

If the explanation of "no agreement" is incorrect, his partner can correct it at the appropriate time (after the auction if they become declarer, after the play if they defend). So there's no need to send anyone away from the table.

[mjj29]

If the explanation of "no agreement" is incorrect, his partner can correct it at the appropriate time (after the auction if they become declarer, after the play if they defend). So there's no need to send anyone away from the table.

I would generally only do that if they said "I think we agreed this but can't remember", rather than definitely knowing they hadn't agreed it.

[barmar]

I would generally only do that if they said "I think we agreed this but can't remember", rather than definitely knowing they hadn't agreed it.

Why? If they're wrong, you need to correct it, no matter the form of their error.

 

Or are you saying you would call the director immediately if they incorrectly gave a definite "no agreement" explanation, and only wait if they gave a "don't remember" answer?

[mycroft]

I don't remember when I last made an unqualified "no agreement". I don't like unqualified "no agreement"s, and there are quite a few times where "no agreement" about that particular bid, but a whole heck of a lot of agreements around it, some of which are only general bridge knowledge if you play around here (or in Poland, or in China, or whatever). I've made a lot of "no agreement, but..." responses, or "we sat down 5 minutes into the first round, and have never played before. Our entire agreements so far are 'Calgary 2/1, Capp/NT, 1430 and standard carding.' "

 

I enjoy "what other calls could you have made that you *do* have agreement about?" That usually draws Blackshoe's Reaction (he doesn't do it, but it's his story). I don't care if we're on an equal footing, but when "no agreement" means "partner's likely to get it 65%, but you're on a 50-50 guess", I don't like it.

 

And there are (some) people who use "no agreement" as, at best (or to be polite), lazy disclosure. That should be discouraged. I don't believe that is a large percentage of the "no agreement" calls, however - just a large percentage of the ones that get to me as a TD call :-)

[mjj29]

Why? If they're wrong, you need to correct it, no matter the form of their error.

 

Or are you saying you would call the director immediately if they incorrectly gave a definite "no agreement" explanation, and only wait if they gave a "don't remember" answer?

No, I mean that as a Director, I would send partner away from the table and ask the bidder to explain only if the partner had said 'we have an agreement, but I can't remember what it is', but not if they said 'We definitely don't have an agreement'.

 

Obviously the normal provisions for correcting MI from partner apply.

 

Matt